A Civilized Debate on Religion 2

[Page]

I am an atheist who believes in hard determinism and some aspects of absurdism; I reject religion and the concept of free will. I think it is inevitable religious beliefs will evolve as it can be observed in history that they always do - I doubt strongly that religion will "go away" any time within my life time. Whether it's destined to be overrun by new age ideals, watered down versions of Christianity, Islam and others that ignore most of the dogma and emphasize spirituality, or a whole new religion will spread very quickly, I don't know.

There will probably be trends toward worldwide secularization but not as vast as wishful thinking atheists would have.

[Siburria]

people used to use religion to explain things they didn't understand. the more advanced we become the less religious we will be.

[Benuty]

Forget the "I don't bite" bit so soon?

As I said bite what?

I am not flaimbating you or trolling you.

I trully believe Jesus did not exist becuase the evidence are overwhelming for that he did not really exist.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... us_as_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on ... thenticity

[Shaggai]

"Does this unit have a soul?"

"If you mean by free will yes.If you mean a arbitrary construct that religious people threaten to eternal fire if you don't kiss their ass then no."

The concept of free will is nonsensical in a nonreligious context. What, exactly, has free will? Does a neuron have free will? If not, then why should a collection of them have free will? The only possible way for free will to exist is if there is something along the lines of a soul.

[Conscentia]

"If you mean by free will yes.If you mean a arbitrary construct that religious people threaten to eternal fire if you don't kiss their ass then no."

The concept of free will is nonsensical in a nonreligious context. What, exactly, has free will? Does a neuron have free will? If not, then why should a collection of them have free will? The only possible way for free will to exist is if there is something along the lines of a soul.

That's assuming a soul is an entity not bound by causality.

[Distruzio]

Forget the "I don't bite" bit so soon?

As I said bite what?

I am not flaimbating you or trolling you.

I trully believe Jesus did not exist becuase the evidence are overwhelming for that he did not really exist.

By "bite" I meant that I wouldn't play that game with you. I don't presume trolling. I presume reality. The reality is that it's cute that you think a simple "nu-uh" is truth enough to dissuade a position you disagree with.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

"If you mean by free will yes.If you mean a arbitrary construct that religious people threaten to eternal fire if you don't kiss their ass then no."

The concept of free will is nonsensical in a nonreligious context.

It isn't.

What, exactly, has free will? Does a neuron have free will? If not, then why should a collection of them have free will?

That is presupposing a incompatibilist position on Free Will, when there is nothing incompatible about the idea that our decision results from deterministic forces within our brains, and the fact that we have Free Will, in that we still have (1) Agency, (2) the Power of unimpeded choice such that (3) we can be held morally responsible.

The only possible way for free will to exist is if there is something along the lines of a soul.

The only possible way for Libertarian Free Will to exist is by magic, a compatibilistic interpretation of Free Will does not need a soul.

[The Rich Port]

The concept of free will is nonsensical in a nonreligious context.

It isn't.

What, exactly, has free will? Does a neuron have free will? If not, then why should a collection of them have free will?

That is presupposing a incompatibilist position on Free Will, when there is nothing incompatible about the idea that our decision results from deterministic forces within our brains, and the fact that we have Free Will, in that we still have (1) Agency, (2) the Power of unimpeded choice such that (3) we can be held morally responsible.

The only possible way for free will to exist is if there is something along the lines of a soul.

The only possible way for Libertarian Free Will to exist is by magic, a compatibilistic interpretation of Free Will does not need a soul.

The fuck it isn't.

If, ultimately, your decisions matter, you have no choice. You're either good or you burn in Hell. Total free will means you are CANNOT be held accountable to your actions if there are is no one to hold you accountable, including yourself, and a partial free will is an oxymoron. God, if it indeed exists, has total free will: what he does is morality, because none can hold him accountable. If all of a sudden "God" says raping children is moral, then you have to go along with it or else you burn in Hell.

What the shit are you talking about?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It isn't.



That is presupposing a incompatibilist position on Free Will, when there is nothing incompatible about the idea that our decision results from deterministic forces within our brains, and the fact that we have Free Will, in that we still have (1) Agency, (2) the Power of unimpeded choice such that (3) we can be held morally responsible.



The only possible way for Libertarian Free Will to exist is by magic, a compatibilistic interpretation of Free Will does not need a soul.

The fuck it isn't.

If, ultimately, your decisions matter, you have no choice. You're either good or you burn in Hell. Total free will means you are CANNOT be held accountable to your actions if there are is no one to hold you accountable, including yourself, and a partial free will is an oxymoron. God, if it indeed exists, has total free will: what he does is morality, because none can hold him accountable. If all of a sudden "God" says raping children is moral, then you have to go along with it or else you burn in Hell.

What the shit are you talking about?

I really am not following your argument. We aren't talking about Morality (the divine command theory has been out of favor since Plato)

[Bzakstan]

I would like there to be an afterlife, although it probably wouldn't be all it's cracked up to be, I really would. But, I am an Atheist because there is just no conceivable way that somewhere like that can exist in a purely scientific sense. As a man of science, if there isn't proof of something, it doesn't exist.

[Benuty]

It isn't.



That is presupposing a incompatibilist position on Free Will, when there is nothing incompatible about the idea that our decision results from deterministic forces within our brains, and the fact that we have Free Will, in that we still have (1) Agency, (2) the Power of unimpeded choice such that (3) we can be held morally responsible.



The only possible way for Libertarian Free Will to exist is by magic, a compatibilistic interpretation of Free Will does not need a soul.

The fuck it isn't.

If, ultimately, your decisions matter, you have no choice. You're either good or you burn in Hell. Total free will means you are CANNOT be held accountable to your actions if there are is no one to hold you accountable, including yourself, and a partial free will is an oxymoron. God, if it indeed exists, has total free will: what he does is morality, because none can hold him accountable. If all of a sudden "God" says raping children is moral, then you have to go along with it or else you burn in Hell.

What the shit are you talking about?

You cannot burn in something that doesn't exist (saying this from a theistic perspective).

[Neutraligon]

As I said bite what?

I am not flaimbating you or trolling you.

I trully believe Jesus did not exist becuase the evidence are overwhelming for that he did not really exist.

By "bite" I meant that I wouldn't play that game with you. I don't presume trolling. I presume reality. The reality is that it's cute that you think a simple "nu-uh" is truth enough to dissuade a position you disagree with.

Provide proof the character Jesus existed in some form (not just some guy with the name). The bible is the claim that Jesus existed so you can't use that.

[Distruzio]

By "bite" I meant that I wouldn't play that game with you. I don't presume trolling. I presume reality. The reality is that it's cute that you think a simple "nu-uh" is truth enough to dissuade a position you disagree with.

Provide proof the character Jesus existed in some form (not just some guy with the name). The bible is the claim that Jesus existed so you can't use that.

Did you not read the post you're responding to?

[Distruzio]

It isn't.



That is presupposing a incompatibilist position on Free Will, when there is nothing incompatible about the idea that our decision results from deterministic forces within our brains, and the fact that we have Free Will, in that we still have (1) Agency, (2) the Power of unimpeded choice such that (3) we can be held morally responsible.



The only possible way for Libertarian Free Will to exist is by magic, a compatibilistic interpretation of Free Will does not need a soul.

The fuck it isn't.

If, ultimately, your decisions matter, you have no choice. You're either good or you burn in Hell. Total free will means you are CANNOT be held accountable to your actions if there are is no one to hold you accountable, including yourself, and a partial free will is an oxymoron. God, if it indeed exists, has total free will: what he does is morality, because none can hold him accountable. If all of a sudden "God" says raping children is moral, then you have to go along with it or else you burn in Hell.

What the shit are you talking about?

God, if He does indeed exist, exists outside all manner of conception (including time, morality, physics, etc) until He does not. Hence the Christian assertion that Jesus is God. Since God is as much God as He is Man, then the antecedent influences and boundaries restricting the human exists also apply to God. Therefore, God cannot declare rape to be moral as Jesus/God was bound according to Jewish morality.

In other words, your destroying your own argument by associating the transcendence of morality and God. If not even the Jewish interpretation of God, being transcendent, exists beyond the scope of morality, then the Christian interpretation of God (Jesus) certainly cannot transcend morality as it exists.

[Shaggai]

The concept of free will is nonsensical in a nonreligious context. What, exactly, has free will? Does a neuron have free will? If not, then why should a collection of them have free will? The only possible way for free will to exist is if there is something along the lines of a soul.

That's assuming a soul is an entity not bound by causality.

The existence of free will requires the soul. This does not mean that the existence of the soul requires free will.

The concept of free will is nonsensical in a nonreligious context.

It isn't.

What, exactly, has free will? Does a neuron have free will? If not, then why should a collection of them have free will?

That is presupposing a incompatibilist position on Free Will, when there is nothing incompatible about the idea that our decision results from deterministic forces within our brains, and the fact that we have Free Will, in that we still have (1) Agency, (2) the Power of unimpeded choice such that (3) we can be held morally responsible.

The only possible way for free will to exist is if there is something along the lines of a soul.

The only possible way for Libertarian Free Will to exist is by magic, a compatibilistic interpretation of Free Will does not need a soul.

Except that choice is not unimpeded, because the choice is predetermined.

[Nervium]

Sometimes I hope there is, because honestly, if this all there is, I'm pretty dissapointed already.

[Crysuko]

By "bite" I meant that I wouldn't play that game with you. I don't presume trolling. I presume reality. The reality is that it's cute that you think a simple "nu-uh" is truth enough to dissuade a position you disagree with.

Provide proof the character Jesus existed in some form (not just some guy with the name). The bible is the claim that Jesus existed so you can't use that.

you either didn't read his post or are replying to the wrong post.